This blog is the second in a series of updates on The Stark County Political Report April, 2014 series analyzing whether or not Stark County government has a good track record in achieving gender equity in its employment practices.
On Monday (LINK), The Report did an update assessment of Stark County auditor Alan Harold's record.
Harold has only been auditor for a little over five years. While much inequity flowed under the bridge before he ever set foot in the auditor's office, yours truly figures that five years is enough time for him to have made some progress in righting the wrongs that he inherited.
Sad to say but the SCPR thinks Harold (held in high regard overall as auditor [see blog on his #2 ranking as on the the SCPR "Top 10 List" of Stark County Political Subdivision Elected Officials]) needs to improve in promoting women in his office to higher paying, more responsible position within his office.
Today, we look at the Stark County commissioners (LINK to webpage) and their 2015 performance as measured against the base year 2014.
Later this year, the SCPR will update this series to show what if any progress in gender equity the commissioners have made from June, 2015 through June, 2016.
Here are the charts:
STARK COMMISSIONERS: ADMINISTRATION
Interesting, no?
The spread:
between the "on average" women's salary grew from $44,307 compared to "on average" men's $66,305 in 2014
to
between the "on average" women's salary grew from $37,670 compared to "on average" men's $86,523 in 2015
The commissioners deserve credit for promoting one woman from within the administrative staff so that she gained 19% over her former salary.
Another female employee was paid more (9%) in 2015 over 2014 but because as a part-time employee she worked more hours.
The primary reason the spread grew was that the commissioners hired a man to be the county's human resources director at $76,502.
How ironic is that?
STARK COMMISSIONERS: FACILITIES
Other than 16.67 increase for the facilities manager position (2015 over 2014), the 2015 graphic is a much better picture for the facilities payroll.
That the commissioners found it necessary to go outside the existing employee ranks to find a new manager is an indictment of there being in place a program to bring a lower ranking (pay wise) employee (and God forbid, perhaps even a female) to the top spot.
Well, Olson, do you really expect that a woman could be in charge of county facility (mostly buildings) maintenance, rehab and the like? After all, this is a man's world isn't it?
STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: BUILDING INSPECTION
The above numbers seem to indicate that even being a union member does not help the women of Stark County Building Department have a roughly similar payroll in terms of "on average pay."
If one includes the department head Angela Cavanaugh, then women do considerably better than men.
However, as the SCPR is led to believe, Cavanaugh is the ONLY non-union employee in the department.
So it is not an "apples to apples" comparison to include her.
The reality is that notwithstanding supposed union protection women other than Cavanaugh are relegated to (relative to inspector/examiner jobs) low paying clerical positions.
In this segment of today's analysis, The Report does not get into comparing increases in 2015 over 2015 inasmuch such in the case of the Building Department is controlled by union contract except, of course, for Cavanaugh.
One final note.
Yesterday, the SCPR got involved in a discussion with readers of this series of blogs about the blue (men), pink (women) graphic scheme devised by the SCPR to show "apparent" inequity in county government on pay equivalency and opportunity for promotion.
(Paraphrased discussion)
"You know, Martin, it is an oversimplification to show gender pay comparisons in blue and pink."
Response:
"Of course, it is. The SCPR understands that gender inequity has been many years in the making."
"And there are a number of factors which make it difficult to achieve equity. A number of those factors are American society wide in the sense that family and institutional (e.g. education) structures of socialization are not keeping pace with the expectations of the modern woman."
"Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of government to provide a quality of leadership that is capable of mitigating the "difficult factors" on the pathway now inculcated in American law towards achieving what is fair in the public workplace."
Accordingly, the SCPR will continue to annually assess how well Stark County leadership does incrementally (year by year) in improving gender equity in Stark County government.
Everybody knows that the Republican Party has lopsided control of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) these days.
And one of the "prime" mantras of the GOP from the national level to the local level is what?
You've got it!
Less government is better government.
Back in October, 2011 a Zanesville area resident released a slew of wild and exotic animals from his property which resulted in law enforcement having to slay some four dozen of them in order to protect the public.
While it was a tense situation, the fact of the matter is that state of Ohio officials and local law enforcement were up to handling the bizarre actions of the Zanesville wild and exotic animal owner.
The outcome is lamentable.
But, again, it got handled and it is hard to see how another layer of government would have altered the outcome more in tune with the sensitivities of animal lovers.
In signing the bill (Senate Bill 310, sponsored by Zanesville Republican Senator Troy Balderson), Republican Governor John Kasich said he didn't think such an incident would ever occur again.
Implicitly, Kasich acknowledged at the signing that the Legislature got bullied by a "'small but loud and emotional' animal owners group."
How unRepublican?
But the SCPR does have to hand out kudos to Stark Countian and state Representative Christina Hagan (R-Marlboro; hardly a favorite of The Report) for being loyal to her political beliefs in not unnecessarily expanding government in voting "no" on SB 310.
Predictably, Stark County Democrat Stephen Slesnick (Canton - 49th House District) voted for the bill. Democratic officeholders, by and large, love to expand government.
Interestingly enough so did (who knows what his political philosophy is, if he has one) Republican Kirk Schuring (Jackson - 48th House District) and a bunch of other supposedly "less government" Republicans.
In the Ohio Senate, Scott Oelslager (R - Plain Township - the 29th Senate District) followed Schuring's lead.
Note that in the Senate, there was only one Republican true believer in smaller government is better government.
Democrats do not have enough votes to pass (or even get out of committee) bills on anything in the OGA.
But they were probably "ga-ga" over the opportunity in April, 2012 to join with Republicans in a "perfect political storm" setting to add another layer of state and local government (and its expense of implementation and continuing operation) on Ohioans.
Just look at all the things that SB 310 does (LINK).
And take a look at the work of the Ohio Department of Agriculture in getting the bill implemented and grafted into the permanent bureaucratic scheme of Ohio and local government (LINK).
A clear cut example of the expansion of unnecessary state government at the hands a Republican supermajority, no?
On Wednesday Director Tim Warstler of the Stark County Emergency Management in responding to the bureaucratic overlay put in place by SB 310 under the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
He appeared before Stark County commissioners in his bureaucracy imposed job to get a Dangerous Wild Animal Response Team (DWART) initiated.
Warstler needed a commissioners' resolution authorizing same for Stark County and he got it.
In his presentation, Warstler did muse on whether or not SB 310 was an overreaction on the part of the legislature.
In a one-on-one interview with the SCPR after his session with the commissioners, Warstler gave the most persuasive case for the OGA having passed SB 310 and Stark County having a DWART.
He said that perhaps an unarticulated reason for the law was the fear that terrorists would latch onto the idea that they could create mayhem among the population by releasing secured wild and exotic animals from the controlled environment.
Nearly every county of Ohio has some facility or citizens who harbor wild and exotic animals.
A prime example for Stark County is the Stump Hill Farm (LINK) which is located on Klick Road.
And here is a list of Stark Countians who are being considered for membership on the Stark County DWART.
In the end, the SCPR thinks that the next time a Stark citizen hears a Republican candidate/office holder opine about "less government is better government," the citizen should say "Oh, yes! Tell me about the Republican initiated and passed Chapter 935 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Is ORC Chapter 935 legislation an example of "less government is better government?"
It was truly amazing to read the letter sent by Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero on Wednesday.
Here read it for yourself.
It has been clear from April 1, 2009 (the date that he fired Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci) that Gary Zeigler is not a "the buck stops here" public official (a la Harry Truman) even though Ohio law seems to put him in that position however involuntary Zeigler may be in accepting the law.
While Ferrero's office and the federal prosecutor exonerated Zeigler of any involvement in the Frustaci theft of what is believed to be $2.96 from the county treasurer, the public and many county officials appear to believe that Zeigler failed to have management and administrative measures in place to prevent Frustaci from doing what he did.
Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code 321.38) holds:
321.37 Suit on bond of county treasurer.
If the county treasurer fails to make a settlement or to pay
over money as prescribed by law, the county auditor or board of county
commissioners shall cause suit to be instituted against such treasurer
and his surety or sureties for the amount due, with ten per cent penalty
on such amount, which suit shall have precedence over all other civil
business.
Effective Date: 07-01-1985
So now Zeigler wants Stark County taxpayers to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in using county legal counsel so he can avoid "personal" liability?
It would be truly shocking if Ferrero were to bite on that one. The Report thinks the chances of that happening is right there in the league with the chance of a snowball in hell.
There is probably a better chance that local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley will convince Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio to prosecute Zeigler for dereliction of duty than Ferrero going after the State of Ohio Auditor.
At Wednesday's commissioner meeting, a Reverend C. David Morgan appeared to make a presentation at the commissioners' Public Speaks segment of the meeting agenda.
His topic?
Citizen trust in government!
Interesting enough he did mention the Zeigler removal from office situation and the frustration that commissioners must feel that they followed a statute to remove him only to have the Ohio Supreme Court invalidate the law.
For the SCPR and The Report believes for large numbers of Stark citizens, the most egregious thing about Zeigler is his "sticking his head in the sand" in terms of denying any responsibility whatsoever for not ensuring that adequate policies, procedures, structures of operations were in place from when he took office in 1999 through the April 1, 2009 Frustaci revelation.
According to Zeigler, he has been a flawless manager and administrator and protector of the public trust. "I have done nothing wrong," he says about his management of the county treasury.
But many differ with him. The State of Ohio Auditor recommended changes that were not made. Successor treasurers Allbritain, Koher and Zumbar made many changes to the measures Zeigler had in place. Moreover, most of the Stark County public is not buying the Zeigler line either.
The SCPR believes that Zeigler's pugnacious, arrogant refusal to accept any responsibility for not having adequate safeguards in place has done much to undermine public trust in Stark County government.
Other county officials do not deserve to be tainted by the Zeigler's obstinance but it appears they are. A casualty of the air of distrust that permeates the public view of county government likely will be the proposed 1/2 sales tax increase that will be on the November ballot.
Because of the situation in the treasurer's officers, Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson have had to be out in Stark County in a series of meetings trying to restore trust. Many county officials joined them including Alex Zumbar who was elected treasurer in November, 2010 only to be removed by the Ohio Supreme Court on June 23rd.
With Zeigler on the sidelines, it appeared they were making progress.
But with him being back, it seems that any ground gained is now lost. His abiding intransigence is not something that Stark Countians are going to accept and they appear prepared to punish all of Stark County government in order to make a point to the county treasurer.
While it was fine for Morgan to address the commissioners, it probably would have been more appropriate for him to have stopped just short of making a left turn into the Stark County office complex.
Rather he should have made a right turn into the offices of Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler and made his speech to him.
He could have asked Treasurer Zeigler to tell him where the "pea of officeholder responsibility" is located in terms of owning up to improvements in policies, procedures and structures of operation that he should have had in place so as to measurably enhance the likelihood that Vince Frustaci could not have done what he in fact did.
Is the Stark Development Board, Inc. (SDB) enough of an economic development effort for Stark County?
Without a doubt, No!
As part of their inquiry into the fine details of the operation of Stark County government, the Stark commissioners have taken the refreshing step of exercising "due diligence" in terms of the effort and expenditures (taxpayer) made by Stark. The implicit question that commissioners are asking: is the county getting "the best bang for the Stark County taxpayer buck?"
While the SCPR believes that SDB's economic development effort is not a complete enough initiative, its CEO (Stephen Paquette) makes a persuasive case that "for what it does," the SDB is an asset for Stark County.
The SDB was created in 1985 by local business and community leaders as a non-profit corporation. Its mission:
to keep businesses in Stark County
to help local companies expand, and
to attract new companies and capital investment to Stark County
Paquette says that the "core programs" of the SDB include:
business retention and expansion
loan financing
new business attraction
real estate and site selection, and
infrastructure development
Notice that neither the mission nor the core programs suggest that the SDB is involved in the development of competent and visionary Stark County leadership.
The absence of a leadership development component from the SDB agenda is a key reason why its mission and programs are inadequate to provide what Stark County needs for effective and productive economic development.
The SCPR has long advocated that Stark County has a critical need of what author Richard Florida (Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute and Professor of Business and Creativity at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto) of developing a "creative class."
The Report believes that Stark County leadership has sat on its collective duff and has done nothing to develop an innovative cadre of leadership types which can work hand-in-hand with the likes of the SDB to make Stark one of America's new examples what can be done when all types of infrastructure (facilities, roads, transportation, culture and the arts, education, workforce development, and of course, "dynamic leadership") are brought together under an umbrella structure of getting things done.
Right now Stark County only has fragments of economic development (some of it very good; much of it worthless) floating around the county.
The job of the commissioners is to recognize the haphazard way that Stark's economic development engine is put together and to push for the creation of an umbrella organization which has the sole function of bringing what parts exist in to confluence with one another and to add those elements which remain missing. Moreover, once a full-blown economic development gestalt is in place, commissioners should provide monthly accountings to the Stark County public via the commissioners' work sessions by having the key players appear and report.
The SCPR has long been critical of the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce's (Chamber) "Leadership Stark County." From what The Report sees, its Government Leadership Academy and Signature Group are primarily credential building efforts which are not in any way, shape or form akin to creative leadership as formulated by Professor Florida. The Chamber needs to take a new look at the format of its leadership programs and to build in an aspect that will generate "creative professionals" and and a "super-creative core" of 21st Century leaders.
A building block for what the SCPR envisions as the development of a meaningful and hopeful leadership model (i.e. to develop something along the lines of Florida's two-tiered creative class) is the work that has been done and which continues to make Stark County a new center of technological development.
In his presentation to commissioners (January 11, 2011 work session), CEO Paquette outlines (see the video at the end of this blog) progress made in giving Stark a technological footprint in describing the Rolls Royce (fuel cells), Kohler Coatings (high tech paper) and Timken (wind energy) project. He does not specifically identify, but he tantalizes by saying that two more such projects are in the works.
Rolls Royce, Kohler Coatings and Timken are examples of future-looking companies that will attract young professionals to comes to Stark County. But what will they find when the get here?
Will they find a Canton city government that fights over rehabbing a city that has wasted away over many decades and presents a largely unattractive physical plant look to visitors?
Will they find the small-minded thinking as evidenced by the effort to build a horse show arena at a dilapitated fairgrounds complex which also has been largely unattended to by successive fair boards?
Will they see a county in which there is fratricidal community infighting over existing business, manufacturing, and commerce in the context of annexation fights?
The SCPR can present many other such questions which should make it abundantly clear that if Stark does not get its act together to create a wholesome environment attractive to those who come to Stark to work for the likes of Rolls Royce, Kohler Coatings and Timken; the efforts of the Stark Development Board will have been in vain over the long haul.
A source who is in a position to know has told the SCPR that the Citizens Review Committee report on county finances in terms of the efficiencies of Stark County departments of government will be out on January 24, 2011 and will be presented by committee officials at 10:00 a.m. in Room 315 of the Stark County Office Building.
UPDATE: 01/07/2011 AT 11:15 AM
First, see the video at the end of this blog which is a presentation of Commissioner Tom Bernabei on the matter of whether or not Stark County will be putting the renewal of the 0.250 sales tax for May or November of this year.
Second, the SCPR has just talked with local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley who says that he will be recommending to the Vote No! Increased Taxes Committee that the group oppose the the renewal of the 0.250 sales tax whether it is put on in May or November.
Conley tells The Report that his recommendation is based on the failure of Sheriff Tim Swanson not seizing the initiative with the deputies' union to reopen the contract to negotiate a freeze on any wage increases. Conley says that deputies are getting pay raises on the mere passage of time and that such is unacceptable in a time when other county workers are taking furloughs and in the face of layoffs in the sheriff's department itself.
ORIGINAL POST
"Two bites at the apple," that's what the SCPR believes today's commissioner decision is about when they meet at 1:30 p.m. today to decide whether or not to schedule hearings which are required to have occurred at least 90 days before May 3, 2011 (the next election day for Stark County) if they want to try to renew the 0.250 sales tax set to expire this year.
Sure, commissioners may lose on May 3rd. But they might not. And therefore why wouldn't they elect to go ahead with the preliminary step of scheduling hearings? They still can, after holding the hearings, drop the tax renewal initiative.
With a reordering (except for Commissioner Ferguson) of who sits in the commissioners' chairs in the 2nd floor (Stark County Office Building) meeting room, it could be that Stark Countians will be of a mind to give the county a go ahead on retaining the tax. Commissioners Janet Creighton and Tom Bernabei (newly elected) bring solid credentials with them in terms of having the public trust. And the SCPR believes that having the public's "trust" is THE KEY for anyone who wants to hold office in Stark these days.
While the laying off of 41 sheriff deputies and 16% across-the-board cuts of county general fund recipients could be a basis for an argument that the fear generated thereby that Stark will be less safe and that there will be less services will be enough to get the county over-the-hump in a 0.25 sales tax renewal effort, The Report does not think so.
If the county is to succeed in May, it will be a public perception that the "new" regime is on the road to restoring trust in the integrity of how tax revenues are spent that determines the question of whether or not to renew. Undoubtedly, some Stark Countians will respond to the "fear factor." But they will not provide a winning majority. It will be, if it is to be, on the basis of trust.
With the loss of about $2.96 million from the county treasury by theft of taxpayer funds by the now imprisoned former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci ($2.96 million in the opinion of federal Judge John Adams; however, Frustaci actually admitted to stealing $2.46 million), Stark Countians lost trust in county officials to protect public assets.
Commissioners Bosley (who did not run for re-election as commissioner), Meeks (who lost to Creighton in November) and Ferguson did what they were empowered to do by Ohio law by removing Gary Zeigler as treasurer on August 23rd on the mere loss of funds while he was treasurer. Law enforcement officials have determined that Zeigler had nothing to do with the theft. And, he is fighting in the courts for re-instatement.
Had he run, the SCPR believes that Bosley would have lost because of a number of factors.
First, he was part of the triad of commissioners (Bosley - [Democrat], Harmon [Democrat] and Vignos [Republican]) who voted to "impose" a 0.50 sales tax increase in December, 2008 for the ostensible reason of fixing the broken 9-1-1 countywide dispatch. When it became known that the tax increase included a split of revenues between a 9-1-1 rehab fund and the general fund, any chance of voter approval to retain the tax was lost. The SCPR believes voters felt as if they were being hoodwinked on the "real" purpose of the tax and responded with a overwhelming thrashing of the attempt to retain the levy.
Second, as a sitting commissioner and being a Democrat (Zeigler's party identity), it appears that the public in voting may have felt (as suggested by and fueled by The Repository editorial board) that he and fellow Commissioner Meeks (also a Democrat) were not active enough in the time between the time of the discovery of the Frustaci theft (April 1, 2009) through June, 2010 (when Frustaci pled to a federal bill of information) to get the investigation moved along to finality. Some even suggested that the commissioners should have been looking over the shoulders of internal treasury operations.
Meeks likely lost - one - he was viewed as a Stark County Democratic Party insider. He had been appointed as the replacement of Tom Harmon who had replaced Commissioner Gayle Jackson (who had obtained a Strickland administration appointment to the Ohio Lottery Commission) via the sponsorship of Stark County Democratic Party bigs (e.g. Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, [former chairman) and Randy Gonzalez (the current chairman) and - two - like Bosley - to repeat the second Bosley point made above - was likely perceived not to have been active enough while the Frustaci investigation lingered to push for its resolution. Moreover, it did not help that Meeks was opposed by the popular former Canton mayor Janet Creighton (Republican) who had previously held a couple of county offices (recorder and auditor).
The SCPR believes that Stark County Auditor Kim Perez was another casualty of the Frustaci matter in losing to Republican Alan Harold this past November.
First, because he was perceived to be a close Democratic political ally of Zeigler and, second, because he was likely thought by the public to have been less than duly diligent in pushing the state of Ohio auditor to pursue a thoroughgoing investigations of mismatches in figures being reported to the county auditor and the auditors own figures which Perez says occurred on a couple of occasions.
Rightly or wrongly based, when the voting public loses confidence in public officials because of perceived failures in the performance of the public duties, then it is likely to be a long climb back to regain that confidence.
If the commissioners decide to put the 0.25 sales tax renewal on the May ballot, the outcome will - in the judgment of the SCPR - be a measuring rod of how much progress the commissioners have made in getting back the voters' trust.
Bernabei got an early start as commissioner because he won the "unexpired term" (of Meeks/Harmon). With his accession to office, he immediately, with the "unofficial" approval of Commissioner-elect Creighton made an immediate change in restructuring the meetings of commissioners. He requested that commissioners meet more regularly than once a week in the form of having work sessions. Consequently, commissioners now meet on Mondays and Tuesdays in work sessions in addition to their regular Wednesday meetings.
Also, Creighton and Bernabei have exercised heightened thoroughness (compared to the former set of commissioners) in bringing various county officials before them (e.g. budget hearings, the 9-1-1 folks, and Fair Board officials) and vetting them on the particular issues that the officials bring with them. Undoubtedly, Stark Countians are taking all this in and such will redound to the benefit - in terms of engendering trust - to the commissioners.
One of Creighton's priorities is to keep tabs on county officials who submit requests for "after-the-fact" funding of various purchases and travel requests. She repeated at this past Wedneday's meeting that county officials should know that she watching these requests very closely.
The Report fully expects that there will come an instance when a repeat offender, for no good reason, fails to get prior authorization and will end up paying out of his/her pocket.
It could be that the commissioners can get a renewal of the 0.25 sales tax in May. And if they do go for a renewal and win, their victory will be more than avoiding a huge, huge 2012 budget crisis which could see budget cuts in addition to this year's 16% balloon to 30% or so in 2012. An important part of a May victory will be a signal that the Stark County public is beginning to trust county government again.
If the renewal is offered, but it loses, then the commissioners have an opportunity to huddle with county officials and perhaps come up with a dedicated criminal justice levy to offer in November and avoid draconian 2012 cuts.
In this way, the county will have gotten "two bites at the apple."
Accordingly, the SCPR advocates that the commissioners offer up the 0.25 sales tax up for renewal this May.
Stark's voters should be afforded every opportunity to avoid the financial calamity which is coming, if the 0.25 or an equivalent thereto is not in place in 2012.
B.A. - Political Science
J.D.
AN INDEPENDENT MINDED POLITICAL COMMENTATOR
Until 1976 I was a Republican. Since then I have considered myself a Democrat. So after long term stints of being a Republican, then a Democrat, I have come to the political position I feel most comfortable with - being an INDEPENDENT MINDED ANALYST who demands effectiveness of our politicians - Republican, Democrat or whatever.
I have changed my political affiliation to "non-partisan" by not voting in either political party primary election.
